The ABC allows comments on some of our articles, as a space for you to contribute your thoughts about news events and participate in civil conversations about topical issues.

All comments are moderated and we make no guarantees that your contribution will be published.

Reply

Author

Email

Date/Time

04 Mar 2015 5:58:47am

Text

PreviousMessage

JJ writes: " But to state that that implies some kind of externally imposed purpose?"

No, Ormerod makes this step clear:

Hume says: You cannot go from an "is" to an "ought"McIntyre counters: You can go from an "is" to an "ought" when the reality under consideration has a purpose

So Dawkins' move from an "is" to an "ought" is only valid if the reality under consideration (a person) has a purpose.

I think where Ormerod goes wrong is that an "ought" often has an implied conditional clause. For example if I say "You ought not to step off a cliff" I am not implying that a person has a purpose not to step off a cliff but am simply not stating the implied conditional "if you don't want to die".

So it is also valid to go from an "is" to an "ought" if we would all agree with the implied conditional. Dawkins is perfectly entitled to assume that we would all agree with the implied conditional clause that we want to make sound judgements about our lives since anyone who would disagree would not be in the audience that he is addressing.